3.  The orthography of our language, rude and unsettled as it still is in many respects, was formerly much more variable and diverse.  In books a hundred years old or more, we often find the most common words spelled variously by the same writer, and even upon the very same page.  With respect to the forms of words, a few particulars may here be noticed:  (1.) The article an, from which the n was dropped before words beginning with a consonant sound, is often found in old books where a would be more proper; as, an heart, an help, an hill, an one, an use. (2.) Till the seventeenth century, the possessive case was written without the apostrophe; being formed at different times, in es, is, ys, or s, like the plural; and apparently without rule or uniformity in respect to the doubling of the final consonant:  as Goddes, Godes, Godis, Godys, or Gods, for God’s; so mannes, mannis, mannys or mans, for man’s.  Dr. Ash, whose English Grammar was in some repute in the latter part of the eighteenth century, argued against the use of the apostrophe, alleging that it was seldom used to distinguish the possessive case till about the beginning of that century; and he then prophesied that the time would come, when correct writers would lay it aside again, as a strange corruption, an improper “departure from the original formation” of that case of English nouns.  And, among the speculations of these latter days, I have somewhere seen an attempt to disparage this useful sign, and explode it, as an unsightly thing never well established.  It does not indeed, like a syllabic sign, inform the ear or affect the sound; but still it is useful, because it distinguishes to the eye, not only the case, but the number, of the nouns thus marked.  Pronouns, being different in their declension, do not need it, and should therefore always be written without it.

4.  The common usage of those who have spoken English, has always inclined rather to brevity than to melody; contraction and elision of the ancient terminations of words, constitute no small part of the change which has taken place, or of the difference which perhaps always existed between the solemn and the familiar style.  In respect to euphony, however, these terminations have certainly nothing to boast; nor does the earliest period of the language appear to be that in which they were the most generally used without contraction.  That degree of smoothness of which the tongue was anciently susceptible, had certainly no alliance with these additional syllables.  The long sonorous endings which constitute the declensions and conjugations of the most admired languages, and which seem to chime so well with the sublimity of the Greek, the majesty of the Latin, the sweetness of the Italian, the dignity of the Spanish, or the polish of the French, never had any place in English.  The inflections given to our words never